Thursday, November 5, 2009

I think winter farmers offering fresh, grown food is a great way for the public to start and maintain a healthy diet. I find it an interesting idea for farmer's to expand their food products year round, offering it everyday and simultaneously locally. This way, it will be easier and fresher for consumers to access. Even though it is harder for farmers to grow crops over the winter, I think it would be worth the promotion for the public. It'll keep the consumers from waiting long months of winter and at the same it benefits the farmers from receiving their customers. But I'm not the only one thinking about that.

Rencontre lists examples of some of the fresh food that the winter farmers' markets will be offering: tomatoes, squash, melons, vegetables, greens, organic meat, jams, canned food, and so much more. With this, both consumers and farmers receive a positive outcome; the farmers earning extra during off season and consumers maintaining a healthy diet during "hibernation" over the winter. The best thing is that these products are close by and are easy to get a reach of.

Not only that, the winter farmer's market provide a up-beating and fun atmosphere. "Customers troll the aisles for the best winter vegetables, frozen meats, fresh eggs and potted plants. Local musicians playing acoustic music provide a festive vibe to the marketplace" (Rencontre, 2). Both the food and the music gives an optimistic atmosphere and so it is a good way for the farmer's to have a year round marketplace.

But the winter farmers' market is not only in Madison, but it is also spreading through the nation according to the article. "Vermont, a state known for its long winters, has seen a recent influx of winter farmers’ markets. Currently, 18 markets throughout the state are open in the winter months" (Rencontre, 2). I believe this brings out the best in obtaining a healthy and better connection with food. The whole atmosphere and options of food fulfils the emotional state of the produce and overall taste.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Well, since my speech seem to only be recorded for roughly two minutes, it is quite difficult to critic on myself. I'll have to manage for now.

Evaluation (base on what was recorded):

Content-The introduction was okay. There were a few pauses which created a more difficult understanding of what was presented. My voice was loud enough and clear. I believe the eye contact was okay, not as well as expected. I can see that I was a bit nervous base on my gestures.

Organization was well performed. Procedures were clear and instructive. But the materials were not listed to do the project.

ConclusionInvalid due to technical difficulties.

Visual aid-The visual aids were well define. There were color papers on the table. The paper boat was visible although it was a bit small from the video distance. The folding paper was visible for others to see and follow.

Delivery-My voice tone was a bit monotone, with a few pitches of enthusiasm but not quite defined. Voice was loud and clear, good enough volume for others to hear and listen. My eye contact was good after the introduction; I looked around the room, making sure everyone was following the instructions and waited for everyone. The body language was always moving while folding the paper. During the introduction, there were a few gestures while speaking, which was a bit distracting. The pace of the speech was steady. There was no rushing or impatience.I think the overall effectiveness in the class was active. My classmates and professor were participating in folding the paper boat and it seemed like everyone was determine to fold the boat with my instructions.Some of my weakness was not having as specific instructions, maybe. A few questions were asked and my vocabulary was not as descriptive.

My commentsMy overall speech, though not fully in length and only base on my memory, was not as well as how I practiced it. I lacked a strong introduction and conclusion. It wasn't as effective to motivate the others to want to fold a paper boat and engage in it. But my procedures, I believe, were clear and concise. Everyone was following along with my instructions. There were a few questions asked during the procedures but I manage to keep the speech flowing and effective in participation. Besides that, I believe I performed the speech well and organized enough. I also wanted to note that my project of folding a paper boat was conducive to the assignment and setting. It was simple and fast to present and do. The time was, I assume was around five minutes, was good; the demonstration did not take over that limit. All together, my point of the demonstration speech ended successfully.

First you'll have to turn the stove on semi hi and medium. When the pan is hot, put in about two spoonful [a silverware spoon] of oil in the pan and spread it. Wait until the oil gets hot. Then pour a large bowl of rice in the pan and turn the heat to medium. Mix the rice for 30 seconds, then put in the cooked eggs and cooked chicken or beef. Then add soy sauce and oyster sauce onto the rice until you get a light brown color. Stir and mix it well with the wooden spoon. When it gets light brown, add the chopped ingredients listed above in the pan [order does not matter, except that the carrots go in first]. After that, mix for around five to seven minutes. When it is done, the stove must be turned off and the fried rice can be transferred to a bowl for cooling. Meanwhile, cleaning should be done: wiping off table, sweeping, washing dishes, etc. The food should be ready by then and good to eat!

On page 54 to 55, Micheal Pollan describes the circumstances that led to the American public's acceptance of "a flood of damaging innovations...such as low fat processed food." I believe his argument for this case is well supported but I do not agree with all his terms in believing that the America's public is accepting what the doctors are telling us to eat base on science facts. It is true that we do accept what the label says but simultaneously, doesn't that show that America is only trying to become healthier in a sense. If "Americans" claim to not care about their health, why would they bother to look at the labels. Yes, Americans does rely a lot on what the labels say but it is only to help us know what we are consuming into our bodies. According to Pollan, looking at "processed food" and "low fat" terms are only destorying our bodies in obtaining the variety of nutrients, but to other people who may have a different kind of diet, it may play a "good" difference in their diet. But as Pollan also mention, the labels would only limit the ill people to lack nutrition that are needed in the body, which I believe is true. But without labels, sick people would not know what to is best for them to eat/drink.

Perhaps Pollan may be correct in his views of America's obsession in their diet. But as we speak now, America's diet, in my opinion, is changing slowly, with the many different ethnicity arriving, new style of tradition and different culture affects the food choice for Americans.